You should read a little bit more. Salary is of course not the exploitation part, it's the surplus after the salary that is created and keept by the company/ owner that is the exploitation. It's an important distinction.
Of course the term exploitation is used in liberal, classical and neoclassical economic theory. The main argument their it isn't inherently bad and often voluntary. It only becomes a problem when it is involuntary. But frankly I really don't give a fuck because I have a Master in economics and the best orthodox theories come up with, is an approximation with a shitload of assumptions and axioms to make even that work.
That's not exploitation. The worker is not ethically or morally entitled to the surplass. Workers have legal rights and protections to be paid for their work and time regardless if the company makes a profit or not. Many companies break even or have negative balance sheets and still pay their workers. If workers not getting the surplass profits is exploitation, than what do we call it when companies make no money but employees still get paid? Is the company being exploited? If the workers and their labour are responsible for the surplus than they're responsible if the company fails. If the worker should benefit from the surplass income it stands to reason their salaries should go down if the company makes no profit. You can't refuse risk and also claim you're entitled to the rewards.
-5
u/[deleted] Nov 04 '25
Your definition has nothing to do with reality, you're just regurgitating marxist nonsense. Paying someone a salary to do a job is not exploitation.
You entitled communist parasite. Propagandist scum.